Not sure if this is the right category - I'm a bit new so please let me know if this is the wrong spot.

One thing I notice on this site is that there are lots of posts that have content that I would consider extreme that is not tagged as such. I just opened up the Posts tab and was hit with 8 different examples of images I would consider 'young', e.g. teenager or below, that were not tagged accordingly. Looking at this type of content makes me uncomfortable. Now I get that the Posts tab is full with the newest posts and lots of them may get tagged down the line, but I think it should be the responsibility of the original poster to tag things like this so my blacklist can do its job.

Obviously this is not feasible for all tags, and many tags like 'sitting' or 'smile' won't kill anybody if they're not tagged when first uploaded. But there are some tags that I think can be universally agreed to be shocking to many audiences, e.g. cub, scat, death, and the like.

I'd like to propose some sort of curated list of these shocking tags, no more than a dozen or so, that have a penalty imposed if someone other than the original poster is the one who tags it. For example, if I post a picture containing death that should have been tagged as such and I don't, when someone else tags the photo properly later it should trigger some system and I should be penalized in some way. Maybe a red bar after a certain number of posts or at least a message saying that I've done something wrong.

yisthmus said:
[...] there are lots of posts that have content that I would consider extreme that is not tagged as such.

Then, have you considered tagging it as such?

-1; People forget tags. I forget tags. That's why the Edit option exists. Take advantage of this and, with your blacklist, you'll never have to see such content again.

Honestly I wouldn't be entirely against penalties for not properly tagging certain extreme content, but before that we probably need to set the rules on what exactly qualifies as such.

Probably what would be considered such is most non-safe young content (barring stuff rated not safe due to something like blood/injury), genital mutilation or general body mutilation, etc.

I wouldn't be against it for a pattern of behavior of not tagging such things. People are going to forget tags every now and then but if someone commonly posting "extreme content" is consistently not tagging the content as such when they should know better then yeah, I agree there ought to be a penalty.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Honestly I wouldn't be entirely against penalties for not properly tagging certain extreme content, but before that we probably need to set the rules on what exactly qualifies as such.

Probably what would be considered such is most non-safe young content (barring stuff rated not safe due to something like blood/injury), genital mutilation or general body mutilation, etc.

This system is something that probably shouldn't be implicated until kiras new upload form becomes implemented as a standard, as that could have selections on it with frequently used vetted tags

I feel like given how everyone has a different view of what "extreme" means, this just opens a gateway to more and more things being added to a "must-tag" list. And that list could get pretty massive, if you really stop to think about it.

If we want to make it more likely that things get tagged, I suggest going back to an earlier thread and considering upping the minimum tag limit. This would encourage people to learn more tags, result in better overall tagged images, and would help people's blacklists work better in general without specifically targeting any particular fetish or particular type of content.

So yeah, no support for penalties for forgetting certain tags. I do support increasing the tag minimum overall though.

Clawdragons said:
I feel like given how everyone has a different view of what "extreme" means, this just opens a gateway to more and more things being added to a "must-tag" list. And that list could get pretty massive, if you really stop to think about it.

That's why I put "extreme content" in quotation marks. I like the overall idea of a penalty for not tagging some stuff since it would help make blacklists work better (at least in theory) but the oversight to make it work might be a little much. Having it be a you should know to tag this, this, and that by now thing would be fairer and easier to implement.

I think I've said before that one thing I would like to see is some category for major character details. For instance, gender (ex: andromorph) and gender pairings (ex: male/female), and form (ex: taur) form pairings (ex: anthro_on_feral), and gender/form tags (ex: intersex_on_feral).

My thinking is that by having a separate tag group for something like that would make it easier for users to learn and to focus on which tags are among the most important to include, as well as easily see when those tags are missing.

The reason I bring this up is that this is a small way to increase the tagging of some important types of tags in a way that doesn't require moderator attention - users wouldn't need to be punished for forgetting things, the design of the tagging list itself would naturally encourage improvements in tagging among users.

I'm not a moderator, obviously, but it seems to me that the admins and moderators are busy enough without having to implement new rules that could slap on a whole ton of extra work trying to verify patterns of tagging for individual users. I'd tend to favor attempting solutions that are lightweight in terms of oversight.

I've been considering something like this for a while and think it might be a good idea to consider having people who intentionally upload "extreme" images depicting different fetishes to be marked with Posting abuse. However, I feel 2 warning shots should be issued by notifying a user instead of jumping straight to penalizing a user in the case of unintention first, and forgetfulness second.

Lickario said:
Then, have you considered tagging it as such?

-1; People forget tags. I forget tags. That's why the Edit option exists. Take advantage of this and, with your blacklist, you'll never have to see such content again.

I agree with you on the fact that people should use the Edit option if certain content doesn't have the appropriate tags that would be blocked by someones blacklist, but as OP stated:

yisthmus said:
Looking at this type of content makes me uncomfortable. Now I get that the Posts tab is full with the newest posts and lots of them may get tagged down the line, but I think it should be the responsibility of the original poster to tag things like this so my blacklist can do its job.

We shouldn't HAVE to expect users to just go into an image they don't like to add a tag to an image that should have been blacklisted, because user's already have these tags in their blacklist for the sole reason of not having to see the image at all.

Let me ask you, if another image like Cbee's pop's up in the near future and a person used the minimum 4 tags not including the "extreme" tags, would you really expect every user to just accept the fact that an image not to their taste bypassed their blacklist? I mean, I've seen almost everything when it comes to "disturbing" images, so it wouldn't phase me to just edit the tags myself, but were not here all the time to just do that.

TLDR;
User's who have blacklisted items should not be expected to just tag it and move on, certain people can actually get sick by viewing certain things and we should consider this.

Against.
Categorizing fetishes (and by extension, users who are into them) as "extreme" is not something that this site should support.

Genjar said:
Against.
Categorizing fetishes (and by extension, users who are into them) as "extreme" is not something that this site should support.

That's true that we definitely don't want to encourage kinkshaming and people should be able to post what they want. Perhaps calling it "extreme" was poor word choice on my part.

But can we at least acknowledge that it can be a problem? I love the blacklist but I cannot count the number of times I've seen content that makes me very uncomfortable due to lazy tagging.

As I said in my original post, there are some tags that I think can be universally agreed to be shocking to many audiences. I think everyone would agree that tags such as gore or cub fit this description.

A few different posters mentioned above that it's hard to define what exactly fits these categories, and that's definitely a challenge, but I think if we start with a small list of three or four 'must-tags' it could be a good point to start with and see if it works at all.

Clawdragons said:
I'm not a moderator, obviously, but it seems to me that the admins and moderators are busy enough without having to implement new rules that could slap on a whole ton of extra work trying to verify patterns of tagging for individual users. I'd tend to favor attempting solutions that are lightweight in terms of oversight.

I definitely agree that I don't want to give the admins & mods extra grunt work; they're already doing so much as it is. I tried to design this plan to require as little work as possible however. Ideally it shouldn't require moderator interaction at all, and be totally automated by checking when new tags are added to post matching the 'must-tag' list.

I think a better term would be Contentious Content or Commonly Blacklisted, not Extreme Content.

I think it would be a good idea to make some tags mandatory when applicable. Stuff like cub, gore and scat could be added as checkboxes on the upload form. That should be enough of a nudge that we wouldn't even need to create a new rule. It would be a nice improvement to the new upload form (forum #256093). It would improve the e6 user experience a lot.

Genjar said:
Against.
Categorizing fetishes (and by extension, users who are into them) as "extreme" is not something that this site should support.

Agreed. Doing so seems equal to insulting users (at least in my opinion).

Kodanis said:
Agreed. Doing so seems equal to insulting users (at least in my opinion).

reminder that nobody has feelings on this website and users caught having feelings will be banned

Lickario said:
Then, have you considered tagging it as such?

-1; People forget tags. I forget tags. That's why the Edit option exists. Take advantage of this and, with your blacklist, you'll never have to see such content again.

I know people forget tags, and we're all only human. But there are three things I would like to say about this:

1. No matter how hard I try, I can't fix the issue alone by tagging. Not just because there is so much content already out there, but because, like I mentioned in the original post, it's common to come across when clicking Posts and seeing the freshly uploaded images. If I go tag everything there, then the next day when I go back I'm in the same boat again.
2. As Denix said, some content (like cub content) I'd really prefer to look at as little as possible. This is the whole point of the blacklist. Opening it up to go tag is something that I think shouldn't be the responsibility of people who don't want to see it.
3. I also want to get into the heart of the issue a bit more. If I'm a poster and I decide to upload an image (like the cheese-grater image) or something involving bloody murder and I don't tag it with gore, what is my thought process there? I don't think this can really be attributed to 'forgetfulness'.

Lickario said:
Then, have you considered tagging it as such?

-1; People forget tags. I forget tags. That's why the Edit option exists. Take advantage of this and, with your blacklist, you'll never have to see such content again.

I mean, you REALLY should not forget tags on the unpopular ones.

I am +1 for this. Likely not for forgetting, but just for a history of not doing it, as others have said.

"Commonly Blacklisted" is also a great name for the tags that this were pertain to, because it is literally true. And avoids people feeling "insulted" because people don't want to see, say, gore

Genjar said:
Against.
Categorizing fetishes (and by extension, users who are into them) as "extreme" is not something that this site should support.

The problem here is that majority will feel extremely negatively about specific content types, which is perfectly understandable and even those with said fetishes should understand this. This is the reason for my requests for blacklist suggestions (forum #270435) and new upload form with seperate section to remind to tag these (forum #256093).
https://e621.net/post/upload?use_new=true

The name used can be whatever, "extreme" is simply what most people think of first when trying to speak of these things, but there are also stuff like My_Little_Pony which isn't extreme, but definitely something that many would categorize as something they despice more than anything else.

Call it "Extreme", "Contentious" or something else, but some kind of list of well known disliked material to help tagging and blacklisting said material and constantly omitting tags from said content should have some consequences, were it scat or mlp. I'm not too big fan of simply forgetting tagging something obvious for one time as I do also have habit of forgetting something as simple as artist tag when I focus on tagging other things.

Mairo said:
The problem here is that majority will feel extremely negatively about specific content types, which is perfectly understandable and even those with said fetishes should understand this.

Marginalizing some content will give fuel to users who are demanding that certain things should be banned. Which is already enough of a problem here: users whining about something that they don't like, when they could just move on. "Use your blacklist" type of reports have exploded in the recent years, and it's not because of lack of tagging.

As such, I'm hundred percent against it. Enough with the "my fetish is more acceptable than yours" mentality. Anyone who comes here for explicit content is considered to be a giant pervert by most of the population. Doesn't make a difference whether it's vore, gore, cub, or just 'regular furry porn'.

Genjar said:
Marginalizing some content will give fuel to users who are demanding that certain things should be banned. Which is already enough of a problem here: users whining about something that they don't like, when they could just move on. "Use your blacklist" type of reports have exploded in the recent years, and it's not because of lack of tagging.

As such, I'm hundred percent against it. Enough with the "my fetish is more acceptable than yours" mentality. Anyone who comes here for explicit content is considered to be a giant pervert by most of the population. Doesn't make a difference whether it's vore, gore, cub, or just 'regular furry porn'.

Definitely. I do think many forget that even just vanilla male on female, missionary only, anthro on anthro is seen as bestiality by general public.

However when tools we give the users to not see content they do not wish to see fails because of other users constantly omitting tags from posts, it's understandable to get angry and currently the user who gets angry that the tools they have been given do not work is in the wrong.

That's why I am in favor of more data and choise so we do not have to go the route of banning material based on subjective opinions. That's why there needs to be promotion of blacklist as even some admins did not know that you can blacklist without having account. That's why giving list of possible material blacklisted during upload is also crusial, not because of censoring, but to avoid conflicts and improving searchability for those seeking that material.

That all said, I do not remember there being persons who deliberately were omitting clearly blacklisted tags on purpose for more than single posts, but at the same time I'm not admin so I wouldn't handle said cases either. So not sure would penalties for said behavior even improve or change anything.

What if the Posts page didn't show unapproved posts by default or by setting? Probably isn't too popular of a suggestion but it would indirectly solve this issue as it usually takes a little time before posts are approved.

There is ofc the "Recent approvals" page.

Sorrowless said:
What if the Posts page didn't show unapproved posts by default or by setting? Probably isn't too popular of a suggestion but it would indirectly solve this issue as it usually takes a little time before posts are approved.

There is ofc the "Recent approvals" page.

That has actually been discussed because there have been also cases of people leaking paid content or previously deleted material deliberately because it would still stay up for at least a while depending on if staff happens to be online.

However we would need to multiply the amount of janitors for that to be viable, so that the avarage post approval time would lower from several days to one.

Also also, it most likely wouldn't solve this specific issue, because janitors usually do not check tags of the post (excluding stuff like artist tag, unless there's only handful of general tags) as they are busy with approving next post already.

Mairo said:
Also also, it most likely wouldn't solve this specific issue, because janitors usually do not check tags of the post (excluding stuff like artist tag, unless there's only handful of general tags) as they are busy with approving next post already.

My idea was that other users would tag those posts before the janitors approve them

Whatever you choose to call it, a prominent official list of 'extreme' tags will just draw more (angry, offended) attention to the posts under those tags. As someone who has to regularly see a bunch of comments at the bottom of these posts bitching about the content at best, or telling anyone who likes it to neck themselves at worst, hard pass on anything that's going to mean more posts with a permanent shitshow at the bottom of them, unless this is accompanied by some sort of crackdown on these comments to ensure that exactly that doesn't happen.

hanzai said:
Whatever you choose to call it, a prominent official list of 'extreme' tags will just draw more (angry, offended) attention to the posts under those tags. As someone who has to regularly see a bunch of comments at the bottom of these posts bitching about the content at best, or telling anyone who likes it to neck themselves at worst, hard pass on anything that's going to mean more posts with a permanent shitshow at the bottom of them, unless this is accompanied by some sort of crackdown on these comments to ensure that exactly that doesn't happen.

I mean, if people aren't forgetting to tag unpopular items, there would be no reason to not extremely punish someone who still complains about it

One thing I've done that almost always works is I send a message when I see someone consistently forgetting some tag (particularly if it's on my blacklist).

Usually the response is "Oh, hey, thanks for the information, I'll do better in the future" and then they do.

What I'm saying is another way to resolve this might be to encourage users to politely help each other out if they see some tag is being consistently forgotten.

Though this might be a utopian solution. I can imagine people sending messages like "tag your foot fetish content please. I find it gross and immoral and degenerate and I do NOT want to see it!" and thinking "oh I said please so that made it polite."

That said, for more controversial fetishes, I think it is usually pretty rare for a person to consistently forget those tags in the first place. When there is a clear focus on some specific, less-common fetish in an image, it is one of the first things users think to tag (again, hence why I think that increasing the minimum tag requirement would probably largely solve this but that suggestion seems to have been left in the dust here).

All in all I just don't think that a "commonly blacklisted" tag list would be ineffective in addition to all the other problems it has. I don't think most users are consistently missing those tags, and those who are would be the sort who'd fail to meet a higher tag limit to begin with.

I'm for this and have suggested it before(in staff chat), as well as raising minimum tag count from 4 to 8 or higher.
I like/am ok with hard vore, gore, rape, death, etc, and even I know these should be tagged because I know it is extreme content. Anyone who denies that some fetish content is extreme is obviously delusional and probably doesn't care where they post stuff in the first place(EG: "I post fetish content on facebook and my family ends up seeing it!").

Chaser said:
I'm for this and have suggested it before(in staff chat), as well as raising minimum tag count from 4 to 8 or higher.
I like/am ok with hard vore, gore, rape, death, etc, and even I know these should be tagged because I know it is extreme content. Anyone who denies that some fetish content is extreme is obviously delusional and probably doesn't care where they post stuff in the first place(EG: "I post fetish content on facebook and my family ends up seeing it!").

The tags minimum being raised is so viable right now it's unreal, we have tags that solely implement up to 7 other tags damn it

Versperus said:
The tags minimum being raised is so viable right now it's unreal, we have tags that solely implement up to 7 other tags damn it

I bet average post tag number increase every year.

Sorrowless said:
I bet average post tag number increase every year.

I mean ya, part of the e621 community focuses almost solely on the creation of tag implication and alias forums, hell just in the last year alone the amount that has been done is threw the roof

Genjar said:
Marginalizing some content will give fuel to users who are demanding that certain things should be banned. Which is already enough of a problem here: users whining about something that they don't like

hanzai said:
a prominent official list of 'extreme' tags will just draw more (angry, offended) attention to the posts under those tags.

Mandating that uploaders tag their posts with the explicit rating, or with contentious tags, or a sound warning, where applicable, is not marginalizing that content. It's giving users more power to avoid posts they don't want to see. This would decrease complaints about contentious content, and it would give mods greater justification for acting against users who make stupid comments instead of just blacklisting it. It's already against the rules!

Genjar said:
Enough with the "my fetish is more acceptable than yours" mentality.

I think you're reading way too much into it. No one's saying that one fetish is more acceptable than another, we're just recognizing the obvious fact that some tags (like cub and scat) users commonly want to avoid.

leomole said:
No one's saying that one fetish is more acceptable than another, we're just recognizing the obvious fact that some tags (like cub and scat) users commonly want to avoid.

Seriously? You say that it's an obvious fact that users want to avoid those fetishes, yet somehow those are 'equally acceptable'?

if the staff starts looking down on some of the content, at that point the message is clear: it's less welcome here, and by extension, so are the users who are into said content. Might as well ban it altogether if we go that route.

That's the type of social filtering censorship that I cannot stand for.

Chaser said:
I'm for this and have suggested it before(in staff chat), as well as raising minimum tag count from 4 to 8 or higher.
I like/am ok with hard vore, gore, rape, death, etc, and even I know these should be tagged because I know it is extreme content. Anyone who denies that some fetish content is extreme is obviously delusional and probably doesn't care where they post stuff in the first place(EG: "I post fetish content on facebook and my family ends up seeing it!").

What about feral content?

On the one hand, if you classify that as "extreme" you've managed to classify a massive portion of the overall art on the site as extreme in a single action. If you don't, you've got to content with the people complaining that sexualized images of animals should be considered extreme.

It seems pretty easy to get to that point too. The bestiality tag is already subject to a lot of hate comments, and I would guess is pretty heavily blacklisted. But it's such a small step from that to feral that it seems to me to be rather arbitrary to cut off the line there.

And from there... I mean it seems like a huge number of other things would quality as extreme as well. I'm not trying to argue a slippery slope here, for the record, but my point is this: There is a sliding scale of "extreme" content, and it seems to me that there are two possibilities. One is that there is no line drawn, in which case that list could get absolutely massive. On the other hand, a line could be drawn, which would necessarily be pretty arbitrary, and that's going to cause a lot of problems.

So far everyone in support of this has given examples of stuff which would almost certainly qualify, but no one is addressing the edge cases. I have trouble imagining there would ever even be agreement as to what is considered an edge case to begin with.

I seriously don't understand how this would actually work in practice at all. There are so many problems that it is mind-boggling to me.

leomole said:
This would decrease complaints about contentious content,

I'll eat my hat if this decreases complaints to any significant degree. Most of the time I see people complain in the comments, it's on stuff that had the big tags from the start, or at least well by the time they commented. While I do see complaints from people saying their problem is that their blacklist didn't catch something because of missing tags, these are in the definite minority. Comments calling people who like/make the content sick fucks are much more common. The people coming from a stance of moral outrage aren't going to stop making the comments they do because blacklists become slightly more reliable, and some amount of people who think like that but just haven't come across content on this site that gets them riled up enough are going to find out about it if there's a prominent list of such things and make more of those comments.

From the perspective of people who blacklist all this icky stuff it's a straight-up win because it means they don't see the stuff they don't like occasionally. From the perspective of us who do like these things it means probably more comments about how we're degenerate psychopaths who ought to kill ourselves that will be permanently below random drawings, often not even hidden because other similarly morally outraged people upvote them well into the green.

Considering that on the one hand this site offers a robust blacklist system and generally very thorough tagging that makes it more effective than pretty much any other site that has similarly objectionable content on it, and on the other there's no comparable system to avoid dumbass comments from people who can't get off their high horse about Internet porn, I don't think it's unreasonable to not want more negative attention unnecessarily drawn to this sort of content unless there's also going to be stronger measures to crack down on these comments.

You guys are really clinging to one person using the term "extreme" once instead of, say, "commonly blacklisted" to find any reason to complain huh?

And, as I said before, if they are more strict on people tagging hot button tags, there is no reason not to absolutely punish the living heck out of someone who makes fun of a fetish or causes trouble in the comments of one

CamKitty said:
You guys are really clinging to one person using the term "extreme" once instead of, say, "commonly blacklisted" to find any reason to complain huh?

And, as I said before, if they are more strict on people tagging hot button tags, there is no reason not to absolutely punish the living heck out of someone who makes fun of a fetish or causes trouble in the comments of one

All of my complaints hold regardless of whether you call it extreme content or commonly blacklisted. Same for plenty of other criticisms. What coat of paint you decide to give the concept really doesn't change much.

Clawdragons said:
On the one hand, if you classify that as "extreme" you've managed to classify a massive portion of the overall art on the site as extreme in a single action. If you don't, you've got to content with the people complaining that sexualized images of animals should be considered extreme.

Rather than focusing on "extreme" stuff, perhaps it could be something more like "obvious" stuff. A small set of common tags that are more often than not the focus of an image when used. For example, if you have an image that's obviously of two or more males having sex, and you don't tag "male/male", perhaps that could be taken as a form of mistagging. As far as this site goes, gay sex is hardly extreme, but it's obvious enough of a tag that's often the focus of the image, with enough people wanting to blacklist it and others who actively search it out, that neglecting it on such an image could be taken as interfering with the functionality of the site's tagging system. Things like bestiality and cub porn would naturally fall into this since they're often the focus when depicted, but so too would things like male/female, watersports, etc.

Ensuring the tags are there isn't to only help peoples' blacklists, it's also to help people who like it to find it. Obviously there would need to be a fair bit of leniency. If an uploader could reasonably miss the fact or be unsure that a particular image portrays something, missing a relevant "obvious tag" shouldn't count as a penalty in that case.

The ultimate point wouldn't be to point out and bring down the hammer on hard fetishes (anyone can add the tags if missing, so it's eventually marked as what it is anyway), it would be to catch people who are regularly skirting around the tagging rules by technicality, interfering with common blacklist and search terms in the mean time.

Watsit said:
Rather than focusing on "extreme" stuff, perhaps it could be something more like "obvious" stuff. A small set of common tags that are more often than not the focus of an image when used. For example, if you have an image that's obviously of two or more males having sex, and you don't tag "male/male", perhaps that could be taken as a form of mistagging.

Might work in theory, but we can't really expect new users (or irregular users) to have a comprehensive knowledge of the tags. Gay was renamed to male/male to make the usage more obvious, yet users still get it wrong from time to time.

Things like bestiality and cub porn would naturally fall into this since they're often the focus when depicted, but so too would things like male/female, watersports, etc.

Cub is contentious in the sense that there's been a lot of tag wars about it. I definitely wouldn't punish someone for not tagging it. But I may be biased, since I don't know when to tag it myself: I find it very difficult to figure out the ages of cartoon non-humans, so I don't use the age tags much.

And bestiality tends to be almost as problematic. New users often believe that it only applies to "human on feral".

Forcing users into tagging the focus is not something that I foresee going smoothly. It's also worth keeping in mind that we have uploaders who aren't fluent in English, who have trouble adding even the minimum of four tags. So it's probably better to stick to the the old principle of "if you're unsure about a tag, don't add it".

Genjar said:
Might work in theory, but we can't really expect new users (or irregular users) to have a comprehensive knowledge of the tags. Gay was renamed to male/male to make the usage more obvious, yet users still get it wrong from time to time.

Sure, that's why it'd be a small subset. Something that could be part of the Upload page (e.g. "Consider if your post contains the following: ..."). Personally, I try to make it a habit to go through the e621:tagging_checklist when uploading, but it does take time and some people don't even seem to try checking through it (and it's not a requirement to). So a smaller, more terse set of tags that you really should check can help out.

Personally, I find it very difficult to figure out the age of a cartoon character, so I don't use the age tags often. That includes cub. And I probably have more tagging experience than an average user.

It can sometimes be hard to tell, yeah. Hence the need for leniency. If a reasonable person might not realize or can't tell, there shouldn't be a penalty. If there's a tag war, or similar images are inconsistently tagged, that would be a good indication that it's not a readily apparent element of the image. But there are plenty of pictures where the character being a cub is very obvious and there's no real excuse to not recognize it.

And bestiality tends to be almost as problematic. New users often believe that it only applies to "human on feral".

A quick look at the wiki page shows that to be incorrect. I wouldn't expect first time or innocent misunderstandings to really bring down the wrath of the admins anyway. Maybe a neutral (non-negative) record explaining the issue, if not a friendly user comment where it gets fixed before an admin or someone ever sees it. The point is more about repeated willful offenses, where a specific user is technically following the minimum tag rules but regularly neglects obvious tags people depend on (for both blacklists and searches).

Thing about this is, I'd want people to tag cub or child, but such a rule would probably only require young. What one person considers as extreme may not be the common variant of blacklisted tag.

What's more, I'd say give users leeway. If they forget the tags, give them an hour or two to correct that.

Furrin_Gok said:
Thing about this is, I'd want people to tag cub or child, but such a rule would probably only require young. What one person considers as extreme may not be the common variant of blacklisted tag.

What's more, I'd say give users leeway. If they forget the tags, give them an hour or two to correct that.

I think moat people get that people forget things. I think more that people are annoyed when they make a habit of "forgetting" :P

Genjar said:
You say that it's an obvious fact that users want to avoid those fetishes

Yes. It's obvious from the comments these posts get, from user's blacklists and from default blacklist practices on other booru sites. I mean come on, this is common knowledge. I think we can all agree that many users want to avoid certain tags? That's why we have blacklists. Let's help them work even better.

Genjar said:
yet somehow those are 'equally acceptable'?

Yes. I don't understand why you think they might not be. If Mr. Rogers acknowledges that Bobby doesn't like peanut butter and helps him avoid it, that doesn't mean Mr. Rogers hates peanut butter!

Genjar said:
if the staff starts looking down on some of the content, at that point the message is clear: it's less welcome here, and by extension, so are the users who are into said content. Might as well ban it altogether if we go that route.

That's the type of social filtering censorship that I cannot stand for.

The staff isn't looking down on any content. They could build a list of Commonly Blacklisted tags based solely on user's blacklists. Asking that certain tags be given extra attention isn't being unwelcoming and it's certainly not saying that any users aren't unwelcome. Again, you're reading way too far into this. Better tagging is not censorship. It's beneficial both to users who want to see those tags and users who don't.

Clawdragons said:
There is a sliding scale of "extreme" content ... a line could be drawn, which would necessarily be pretty arbitrary, and that's going to cause a lot of problems.

It doesn't have to be perfect. Even if it only includes the one or two tags most commonly blacklisted by users, it's still an improvement to the e6 experience and worth implementing.

hanzai said:
The people coming from a stance of moral outrage aren't going to stop making the comments they do because blacklists become slightly more reliable

I don't think it's unreasonable to not want more negative attention unnecessarily drawn to this sort of content unless there's also going to be stronger measures to crack down on these comments.

Comments like that are precisely why we have the Refusal to Use Blacklist rule. Like CamKitty said, encouraging the correct tagging of contentious content would strengthen mod's reasons for cracking down on users who break this rule.

leomole said:
It doesn't have to be perfect. Even if it only includes the one or two tags most commonly blacklisted by users, it's still an improvement to the e6 experience and worth implementing.

I think it'd be an ineffective and contentious change that wouldn't really improve the experience of using the site noticeably. I think by contrast, other solutions which I've proposed in this thread would address the problem more effectively and would be less contentious. This is the core of our disagreement. You think it'd work and wouldn't cause much in the way of problems, I think it wouldn't work and would cause tons of problems, especially compared to other solutions.

leomole said:
Yes. I don't understand why you think they might not be.

Because of the obvious slant in perception caused by such a change. _{^{All fetishes are equal, but some fetishes are more equal than others.}}

Again, you're reading way too far into this. Better tagging is not censorship. It's beneficial both to users who want to see those tags and users who don't.

Maybe you're reading too little into it. Social filtering is the first step to full censorship. We've seen it happen with FurAffinity, Tumblr, etc. If you want something like cub banned, first you need to get the staff to admit that it's more extreme than the other content.

I haven't seen shred of proof that users willfully refuse to tag something. Like I've already said, newbies and users who are not fluent in English sometimes don't know what to tag. But that's almost always solved by dmails.

Nor do I understand the mentality of not wanting to see something so much that you'd want to marginalize it. I don't like vore, after all these years it still makes me violently ill because of bad childhood experiences. That didn't stop me from approving them, or from tagging literally thousands of vore posts during my active time here.

And as explained by others, it is not beneficial to the users who want to see the content. Because it fuels the flames, that's always what happens when something is labelled as extreme (call it contentious or whatever, same effect). Especially with the current weak punishments, where users can shitpost all they want for a day and then just wait for the neutral to decay. In most cases their comments aren't even hidden, so it's a free license to troll once per year. Which is something that some users clearly have picked up on, based on their repeated behavior.

Genjar said:
Because of the obvious slant in perception caused by such a change.

That perception already exists. Everyone already knows that some types of content are more contentious than others. Like I said, that's why the blacklist exists. The scat covered underage cat is already out of the bag. Acknowledging it and making it easier for users to avoid is not censorship.

Genjar said:
Maybe you're reading too little into it. Social filtering is the first step to full censorship.

Arguing against Improvement 5E because it might possibly lead to Diminishment 9B isn't wrong per se, but to me at least it's unconvincing. There is zero proof that the e6 admins want or are considering a ban on any type of furry art.

Genjar said:
I don't like vore, after all these years it still makes me violently ill because of bad childhood experiences. That didn't stop me from tagging literally thousands of vore posts during my active time here.

That's very magnanimous of you. Nevertheless, I think that users who want to avoid scat or rape should be able to, and we should empower them to by mentioning these tags specifically on the upload form.

Genjar said:
Especially with the current weak punishments, where users can shitpost all they want for a day

I agree that the Refusal to Use Blacklist rule should be strengthened.

leomole said:
That's very magnanimous of you. Nevertheless, I think that users who want to avoid scat or rape should be able to

How wonderful that you want those users to have a specific portion of their blacklist made more effective.

Personally I'd like everyone's blacklist made more effective, hence why I keep talking about the increase to the minimum tag limit. But apparently solutions that help everyone are worse than solutions which only help some people.

Honestly at this point I think I'm going around in circles and that's no good. I'm going to try to avoid continuing in this topic because really, I've said my piece, and I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point. Though if the thread continues on for several more pages I might rethink that.

I agree that making all blacklists more effective would be a good thing. If there were a practical way to do that I would support it.

Raising the minimum tags would not significantly help blacklists. The uploaders who tag minimally will continue to tag minimally. Mandating that they add two or three more tags will not suddenly make them want to use tags like scat and rape if they weren't already. (Changing the upload form would be far more effective.) And raising the minimum tags certainly wouldn't make minimal taggers want to use less commonly blacklisted tags like humanoid_on_anthro or nightmare_fuel.

In the absence of a perfect "all tags" solution, let's try a solution that maximizes effectiveness by addressing the most commonly blacklisted tags.

This whole topic boils down to "I don't like ideals I don't agree with so how do I force other people to do more work so I don't have to think about them?" The answer is you don't. You can't force other people to change. If you can't handle seeing a type of content, then browse by date two days behind or browse from 30 pages back. The solution is trivial yet people refuse to use it, why?

Things would be easier if the earliest page was numbered 1 because then you could simply start where you left off, but no one on the internet uses sane numbering schemes. Software likes to constantly annoy people.

I strongly disagree with adding specific fetishes to a required tagging list. That'll force those fetishes into the faces of everyone who uploads. So you have MLP blacklisted and its on the required tagged list because tons of other people blacklisted it too. For every image you upload you have to take the time to think if you should tag it MLP so you don't get banned. Thus you're constantly forced to think of things you don't want to think about. That's completely the opposite of the original goal and it punishes the people who put in the effort to make this site as good as it is.

The only solution I can think of which doesn't punish someone is to simply browse a little behind. Bookmark page 30 instead of page 1 and never think about the issue again.

Genjar said:
Maybe you're reading too little into it. Social filtering is the first step to full censorship. We've seen it happen with FurAffinity, Tumblr, etc. If you want something like cub banned, first you need to get the staff to admit that it's more extreme than the other content.

Fuck, allright, I'll admit.
I have been trying to deliberately get ponies banned from here, little by little, to the point that every single pony has been yeeted into derpibooru.

Like yeah, the point here is to not single out individual fetishes and make them see bad, but to make sure that the things that people already blacklist are getting properly tagged to avoid unnecessary conflicts. It could vary from 3D artwork into scat or even just straight up female tag.

Also even if the choises internally is to keep everything on same level and handled equally, we do even now still have problem of stuff like scat being downvoted simply because of subject matter and stuff like human loli/shota content gaining attention of companies and goverment agencies, which in long run can become problematic, I think some countries are already blocking the site for this reason alone?

Also we are already full on banning colored humans, so we already see these as bad for our site. As long as we keep the rulings on stuff of relevance rather than stuff of subjective tastes it should be all good.

mrox said:
This whole topic boils down to "I don't like ideals I don't agree with so how do I force other people to do more work so I don't have to think about them?" The answer is you don't. You can't force other people to change.

Yes, you can't force people to change. But nobody here is trying to.

As has been said, we're all massive perverts already. My avatar contains a dog dick. If my family saw my avatar, I'd probably be shunned for a good decade or so. I know they don't want to see that content, so I don't show it to them. Nor do I show furry content to anyone else who doesn't want to see it. Some people don't like watching any type of porn, and that's okay too.

All I'm asking for is for the same respect to be applied to the type of porn on this site that is commonly blacklisted. That's just a popularity number, and not a value judgement. It's not looking down on it. Again, none of us can talk anyway. And if the solution with the "commonly blacklisted" tags would cause more issues than it solves, then we shouldn't use it.

But can we at least all agree that there is a problem? It is a very, very common occurrence for me to find things that should have been hit by my blacklist, but weren't due to lazy tagging. I'm not saying my solution is the best way to fix this, but I think it would at least help. The blacklist is there for a reason, but if it doesn't work then I honestly think that may be giving more fire to people in the comments than anything else. There's no faster way to get someone to resent something than by throwing it in their face when they don't want to see it. And right now, that is what's happening.

I just don't think there is connection from adding this feature to the upload form to a mass ban of all nom-vanilla content.